Cope
Cope
Comments
99-
-
Do that many of you really play in these antagonistic as fuck groups? I see so many memes that imply a very a hostile dynamic between DM and players. I think you might need to find a better group if that's the general atmosphere.
-
Not really, at least, not anymore.
There are some people that come to RPGs to escape reality and man, do they need it. D&D holds out a promise of agency, power, and control, in a fantasy setting free from real consequences. Provided a player lacks these things in real life, they can cling to it like a life-preserver. Then, take any of that away - as a DM must do - and things can get ugly.
I really want to say that there's a known and practiced way to get people like this some real help, like a free hotline or website. After all, if it's going to come up, this is the place it's going to happen. Sadly, I know of no such resource.
-
Yeah, that makes sense. Those people would really hate my games because I've switched to call of cthulhu lately and in that game you are absolutely not powerful 😅
-
-
A fuckton of people these days play D&D as a pick-up game with randos off Discord or Roll20 and not actually in person with people they know.
-
To be fair that still doesn't prevent you from kicking arseholes out of the group. I run games for randoms on Discord and will absolutely tell people to either remember that we're all here to have fun or to not bother coming back. That said I do recognise that it can be difficult to find groups sometimes and that can push people to have lower standards than they maybe should
-
I guess that makes sense. To be honest for me it's such a social experience who I'm playing with is the biggest thing I care about.
-
with randos off Discord or Roll20 and not actually in person with people they know.
I know online rpg changed a lot in 20 years, but when I was playing online around 2010, playing on teamspeak, also meant be part of community, and ask others GM about new players before having them joining your table (No show, cheating and other bad behaviour would quickly be known by everyone) . Moreover, because you don't know them, it's easy to kick them out.
-
so the jerk ratio is higher? genuine query, only played with friends irl
-
-
I have a feeling that people who spend their time posting memes about shitty relations between players and DMs probably aren't actually playing that much.
Also, like, every social media platform seems to thrive on conflict, so there's probably a relationship between spending loads of time engaging with those platforms and having a shitty attitude in general.
-
D&D is like sex, in the sense that "no D&D is better than bad D&D"
I find that the people who play in groups like this are people who haven't been able to find a better group, but haven't realised how antagonistic groups kill the joy of the game
-
I would agree with that. I'd rather not play than play in a bad group (or a group that doesn't play the style I enjoy)
-
-
-
It occurs to me that open rolls are mostly a thing because it’s fun to roll dice, and character sheets are a thing because players like to optimise. It’s be fun to have a system where the rolls and player stats are hidden information and the players only have perception of how good their character is at stuff from the outcomes of their choices - like you can have a full-on Dunning Kruger wizard in your party, or be totally unaware that your barbarian has an innate skill for music.
-
Not going to lie, this sounds like a fun game.
-
I mostly remember the events from the 1s I have rolled. 20s fade into insignificance
So it's nice when die rolls are open, do everyone can share in the expectation
-
-
tangentially related:
mothership has a cool mechanic where when you roll a death save, you do so under a cup so no-one can see it, then lift the cup when a party member goes over and checks to see if you're alive
i liked it so much that i've cribbed it for other systems-
Now that is creative.
-
-
I have to roll in the open, otherwise I'm tempted to lie about the rolls to benefit the players. I don't want to, it just happens.
-
start of the big antagonist fight and it rolls a crit that would end the party and the session right then and there in an unsatisfying way? no it didn't lol
-
-
PF2e. #recommend
-
ok so for anyone wandering, most rolls in pf2e are required to be open, except for actions with the secret trait, which the gm rolls in secret. there are very fw of those, and they are only ever used for when a player/pc shouldn't know how well they went. some examples are: peception checks, stealth, recall knowledge, deception, and some other similar checks that, in real life, you couldn't really know how well you did
-
-
I'll be going to my first dnd session next weekend. Can someone explain why metagaming bob doesn't like this regulation?
Edit: Thank you everyone! Great explainations.
-
Metagaming is broken into two halves. There’s the acceptable “suspend your disbelief” type of metagaming, where the entire table just sort of agrees that certain things (like a character being able to hike miles at a time while carrying 300 pounds of gear, just because they have a good Strength stat) is a perfectly normal thing. When people discuss metagaming, that’s usually not what they’re referring to.
When people discuss metagaming, they’re usually referring to when the player acts on knowledge that their character doesn’t have. For instance, maybe the player has already read/played the module before, so they know where all of the traps in a dungeon are. And maybe they take a route through the dungeon that conveniently avoids or bypasses every single trap. It’s one of those things that’s difficult for the DM to police, because delineating the difference between “the player got lucky/had a suspicion because of something I said when describing the room” vs “the player already knows what is going to happen” would require mind-reading. And notably, the only person who enjoys this type of metagaming is the metagamer. If the DM and the metagamer are the only ones who know the module, the metagamer is ruining a lot of the suspense and potential dramatic twists for the rest of the players at the table.
Wisdom governs a lot of “I want to find out something about the environment/this NPC” skills. Perception, Insight, Animal Handling, and Survival can all be used to notice things in different scenarios, (notice a trap, catch a lie, intuit an animal’s intentions, follow a trail in the wilderness, etc,) and all of them are governed by Wisdom. The only real exception is Investigation, which is governed by Intelligence. But Intelligence is mostly focused on “you remember this thing” skill checks, rather than “you notice this thing” skill checks.
As a result, Wisdom checks are often targets for metagaming. For instance, Perception allows you to detect things like traps or environmental details that would otherwise go unnoticed. Maybe a treasure chest has a false bottom, with extra loot hidden below it. The metagamer has already read the module and knows about the false bottom. And the metagamer will usually try to find ways to “force” certain results that they want, or will blatantly act on knowledge that their character wouldn’t have.
In the above “treasure chest with a secret compartment” example, maybe the metagamer (knowing there is loot under a false bottom) says they want to thoroughly search the chest. The DM calls for a Perception check as they rifle through the contents. The metagamer rolls, and the entire table can see that it is low. The metagamer knows they failed the Perception check. But they still want the loot at the bottom of the chest. So they say something like “when I don’t find anything worthwhile, I smash the chest in frustration.”
Now the DM is in a tricky spot. Do they reward the player and reveal that by smashing the chest, the player finds extra loot hidden in a secret compartment? Or do they try to punish the metagaming by saying that they find a bunch of smashed (now worthless) loot in what used to be a secret compartment? It’s a judgement call on the DM’s part, because the DM can’t read the player’s mind to know if they were trying to metagame.
For another example, maybe an NPC tells a lie. The metagamer asks if the NPC is lying. The DM calls for an Insight check. The metagamer sees the low roll, and the DM says the NPC seems to be telling the truth. Now the metagamer is in a spot where they (as the player) don’t believe the DM. But the metagamer’s character believes the lie, because they failed the Insight check. Now the metagamer may try to find ways to circumvent that failed Insight roll, by finding other ways to catch the NPC in a lie. Maybe they try to poke holes in the NPC’s story using History, Religion, Arcana, Nature, and/or Investigation (all governed by Intelligence) checks instead. Or maybe they go out of their way to find evidence that would disprove the lie. Even though their character would have no reason to do so, because their character believes the lie.
By hiding Wisdom checks from the players, it helps eliminate a lot of metagaming. Especially in the last example. If the Insight check was hidden from the player, the player wouldn’t know if they failed the check. So they just have to take the DMs word when they say the NPC seems to be telling the truth. It eliminates the entire “player saw the low roll and doesn’t believe the DM” part of things.
-
Bob: "Do I see anything?"
[Rolls a 1]
DM: "You see nothing"
Bob: "Well, DM probably only said that because of my shit roll, I bet there's something here"
-
Bob presumably has been using player knowledge to inform character decisions in a way the group doesn't like.
For example, illusions may require a wisdom check to realize they're not real. When Bob rolls openly on the table and gets a 1, he decides as a player that his character is going to treat the lava monsters as illusions. If he instead had to roll in the opaque jar, he as a player would be less certain about if they're illusions or real.
-
So first off, Meta-gaming in DnD is a bit weird. It's both acceptable and not acceptable, depending on the limitations therein. Like it is technically metagaming to have one PC trust another after just meeting in the game for the first time but this is not just acceptable but actively encouraged in some games because you don't want to draw out being untrustworthy of your party in the first session when the whole goal is to play together.
But the flipside is bad metagaming like if you read a module ahead of time, have information about that and then use that to take actions like fetching a bad guys bugout bag and investigating a specific wall to see through the illusion (Fuck you, you giant turtle asshole... sorry. Bad experience) then that is just you being shitty because you're not really playing the game. This is taken a step further with dice rolls. You may or may not notice that some DMs will ask for a specific DC and other ones will just ask for a roll and then tell you if you succeeded/failed after the fact. The ones who ask for it after the fact have typically dealt with a lot of Metagaming Bobs. People who, when they hear a specific DC, will roll just barely that DC or roll to beat it. Especially if it is a big and important roll. They don't want the dice to tell the story, they just want to win. They don't understand the game. To them it's being the hero or succeeding everytime so they'll lie about the dice rolls.
Metagaming bob is upset in this instance because the DM has elected to have all players roll in a specific thing so that only the DM can see the roll. That way only the DM knows whether they succeeded or failed. Bob feels like his agency has been taken away and he doesn't trust the DM. He thinks the DM will just lie about the rolls because Bob can't understand playing the game in any way other than how he sees it. He is mentally accusing the DM of doing what he does. So when he says that there is a problem, the DM knows that he has caught Bob.
From this point, Bob will typically flame out of the party. He will get upset about something and either be pushed out by all other players and the DM or just leave himself. Less often, Bob starts to learn the error of his ways and accepts the dice as the true storytellers and all of us just along for the ride.
I hope that helps and I hope that you have a fantastic session next weekend! May you always roll with advantage and the dice be forever in your favor <3
-
I took it another way, where Wisdom specifically controls skills like Perception, Insight, and Animal Handling. Basically, skills that allow your character to notice or intuit things about the environment/NPCs.
Let’s say an NPC tells a lie, and you ask whether or not they’re lying. The DM asks you to roll an Insight check, and see that you rolled a 1. This means you (as the player) know you can’t trust when the DM says the NPC is being truthful. But your character believes the NPC, because you obviously failed the Insight roll. And that’s where the metagaming comes into play, with the player finding alternative ways to be able to act on what they believe was a lie, even though their character believes something to be a truth.
By hiding the Insight roll from the players, it obfuscates the pass/fail, and eliminates the entire “player knows someone was lying but their character doesn’t” metagame.
-
-
-
If your group has the trust, there is something to be said for making all rolls GM rolls. The GM is going to tell you how it turns out anyway so why not just make them roll? Let them handle the mechanical elements of the game so the players can focus on the role play.
-
For me as a GM this is a nightmare scenario. You want me to not only manage story, NPCs, physics, metaphysics, narrative cohesion, pacing, world building, encounter design and scheduling, I now have to make your rolls too? Miss me with that shit.
I would turn this around: If there is trust [to not meta game] there is no need for the GM to make any rolls or have hidden stat blocks for any NPCs. This way the GM can focus more on roleplay.
-
This. In fact wishing I had someone dedicated to managing the rolls and mechanics is why I paid for a program that did it all for me. I have not important things to remember than the ac and HP of half a dozen goblins, three wolves, a bugbear, a druid who forgot she could shape shift, a wizard who can't remember what spells they have and a dragonborn barbarian whi forgot what his breath weapon was. You want me to look up each characters stats for each roll too!? How about everyone is responsible for keeping track of their own shit while juggle an entire worlds worth of flaming adventure in front of you. If you can't be trusted to play fair then suffer the consequences of everyone's ire, and my surprise mind flayer to your shenanigans. You're characters brain is mine now
-
There is approximately zero weight to being the roller. If the added task of rolling a die you would normally ask them to roll is going to be the straw to break your back, you're probably dealing with something else.
-
-
I used to play when the basic D&D was out, we rolled. Later in highschool we had this amazing story telling dramatic DM, he did all the dicerolls. At first it felt odd, but since he kept the story moving it let you focus on group communication and your own role play.
-
I like making the math rocks go clicky clack though
-
The math has been within you the whole time, my boy. The rocks do nothing.
-
-
If your group has the trust
This is the heart of tons of table drama. The DM wants to tell a story and the players want to be heroic. The dice add randomness that can add drama, but they also cause chaos by introduction outcomes people don't want.
If you're just trusting the DM, why have rolls at all? Just tell GM what you're doing and GM tells you what happens. But then players feel like they've got less heroic agency. They're not pulling together a brunch of cool traits to do something risky and daring. They're saying "I leap over the battlement and drive my spear into the champion's throat" and the DM either says "Yeah" or "Nah". You need phenomenal trust in your GM for that to work. A bunch of 12 year olds at a table aren't going to have that.
Let them handle the mechanical elements of the game so the players can focus on the role play.
The mechanics are, ostensibly, there to facilitate the roleplay. The paladin's smite isn't just a set of numbers, it's an expression of their role as holy warrior and divine judge.
-
That's why you would keep the randomness of the dice, but isolate it. It's easy to trust a DM to be reasonable when it comes to some things, but the randomness is useful in making the play more interesting, and people aren't great at creating statistically distributed randomness. And if your DM is just looking at the die and saying, 'yah' or 'nah,' they shouldn't be your DM. If your players can't handle being told their characters' attack didn't land, they aren't ready to play the game. It isn't possible to win or lose DnD, but it's absolutely possible to succeed or fail to play.
And you wouldn't be removing the mechanical elements, such as the smite, just putting player focus on the diegetic space. They can still smite, but with their attention spent on thinking about the righteous smash of their weapon against the enemy's armour and less on going 'okay, then we carry the one, and...'
-
-
-
Gamang
-
☕
-
-
...individual game systems vary, but fifth-edition D+D was designed with many mechanics which depend upon open rolls with secret modifiers: if your players' characters can perceive an action taking place, roll openly; if they can't, invert the roll (DC-12 modifier) and roll secretly against their passive scores...
-
My DM last week decided to have this weird fucky thing in the area that we were at. Some fucky wucky magic that was making it so after every roll (except for attacks) the DM made another roll to determine odds or evens. If it was evens, your roll worked as normal. If it was odds, your roll was reversed so that your nat 20 would become a nat 1. But that also meant if you ended up with a nat 1 and he rolled an odd, you'd get a nat 20. This happened twice. We were all laughing nonstop because like... none of us could have metagamed it if we wanted to. And some of us roll physically and others on dnd beyond. DM just trusts us. So when I said a Nat 1 at one point with a pained sigh, I had forgotten about his odds/evens thing. He rolled and started laughing and then we all started laughing as the roll went through stupendously well.
Not exactly the same as what you're describing but I thought it was fun and wanted to share <3
-
So many people hate secret rolls. So many people feel like they remove agency from them.
But that's what the dice do. They're agency-revoking machines.
One reason people may dislike secret rolls is you can't be sure the GM isn't just lying to you. Though if that's the case, you should probably find a GM you trust.
On the other hand, I prefer systems where dice aren't the sole arbiter. I want to be able to spend a fate point or inspiration, or succeed at a cost.
Question. I've never DM'd obviously, but outside of combat I assumed the success threshold was something the DM made up on the spot based on how hard the task/situation should be and does not explicitly communicate that to the players. Is that what happens?
I would rather know my roll so I can imagine for myself how much of my character's capability went into the attempt. Failing a check after rolling a 2 vs rolling a 19 affects how I play from then on, similar to how I think it would affect my character psychologically. If you try to climb a wall and fail without knowing the roll, would you try again? I hope that made sense.
I don't see the issue with the GM lying to players if the lie makes the game more fun and less frustrating.
That’s part of the job as a DM. I would often have new enemies show up to the fight if it was going too well, or secretly nerf the enemies stats if it was going too poorly.
There are probably ways to ensure that the DM isn't lying to you, like the DM could take pictures of the dice rolls and reveal the pictures later. But trust is better like you said.
For all its other faults, I love the Edge system of shadowrun. In brief, Edge is an attribute like strength or charisma but also a resource pool. You can spend a point for a greater chance of success, or you can permanently burn an edge point for a +4 success (degree of success is calculated into damage).
But how do they know what the DC is?
TTRPGs with no potential for unexpected failures are improv storytelling. Also a valid hobby, just, like... a different one
TBH, 5e hates secret roles. (yes, i know this is not a 5e specific post, just a personal gripe)
There are way too many abilities that trigger on a failed roll or can be used after a roll that this kind of play style straight up conflicts with.
One of the worst ones for this kind of thing is the soulknife rogue's Psi-bolstered knack (that they get at level 3), with both triggers explicitly on a failed roll and refunds if the extra dice if it doesnt make it succeed so you cant even include mystery if the reroll made it a success.
It works fine as long as they don't try to use the extra die until after the actual result is clear. So it's fine if they're trying to reroll checking for traps, but not if they're trying to reroll whether or not some creature successfully laid eggs inside them.
I'm a GM and I have offered my players many times to stop doing secret rolls, but they like it. I think they especially like it when I have to make up BS on a crit fail
While this is true, there are also aspects of game play that blind rolls would interfere with, such as Heroic Inspiration or the Lucky feat, where you should be able to see what was rolled in order to use them as designed.
Are blind rolls implemented across the board like that very often? There's plenty of rolls that don't affect the game if the players know about them, or would hinder the game like you're saying. Probably for the sake of brevity the OG OP just didn't clarify all the exceptions to the rule. IDK tho maybe there really are pure-secret-roll DMs
Well, not every game has Heroic Inspiration, but it still has people that gripe about secret rolls. And of those games that have metacurrencies for rerolls and the like, they're not intended to be used in those situations.
Main issue is the extra GM workload, which is why I like the GM never roll trend, one less stuff to do means more time to focus on GMing
Unless you have something specific, and you should let your DM know ahead of time, for wisdom rolls specifically blind rolls can be pretty fun.
That said, if you roll a nat1 and you DM says someone is trustworthy then that also doesn’t mean they’re lying, so it’s not a huge deal.